Here is the statewide ballot measure lineup for the June, 2010 primary election in California, with minimal commentary:
Proposition 13
Drawing an iconic proposition number for sure, this Constitutional Amendment was put on the ballot by the Legislature and was sponsored by Republican State Senator Ray Ashburn. It would ensure that new construction projects to comply with seismic safety requirements imposed by government will not result in an unwelcome higher property tax bill on the property, which is a pretty good idea.
Proposition 14
Another Constitutional Amendment measure put on the ballot by the Legislature, this amendment, sponsored by Republican State Senator Abel Maldonado, would change the manner in which political parties choose their nominees in partisan races. Instead of the current system, which is known as a "closed primary," Proposition 14 would establish a "top two primary" system, in which a voter could vote for any candidate without regard to political party registration. The current law, which requires notice to voters on the ballot of the political party registration of nominees facing off in a general election, would also be changed to allow the candidate to "choose whether to have his or her political party preference indicated on the ballot…" The two candidates receiving the highest votes in the primary election, regardless of party registration, would face off in the general election. Nonpartisan races would not be changed under this amendment, and the Legislature would be directed to establish new rules for partisan elections for presidential candidates and central committees. Under the new rules, it might be possible for the presidential elections to continue to be closed primary elections, which is favored by national party rules for those elections.
There will plenty of time for comments pro-and-con on Proposition 14 and other measures on FlashReport as the election moves forward. An observation I will make here is that under this measure, a Republican nominee for Congress running in San Francisco against Nancy Pelosi, where Republican registration is dismal, who was able to finish second in the primary, could chose to eliminate the word "Republican" from his/her ballot designation in the general election. Likewise, a Democrat running for Congress against John Campbell in Orange County, in whose district Obama actually beat John McCain, but where Democrat registration is lower than Republican registration, could chose to eliminate the word "Democrat" underneath their name on the general election ballot.
Proposition 15
Another measure put on the ballot by the Legislature, in this case a statute, sponsored by Democrat Assemblymember Loni Hancock of Berkeley, would address the inequities to "non-wealthy voters" of political campaign funds being spent on the election of California’s Secretary of State. (I am not kidding, the measure actually says this.) It establishes a new tax on "lobbyists" with the money to be used, along with taxpayer "check-offs," to create a public campaign finance fund for all future elections for Secretary of State.
While my intention has been to be somewhat neutral in my presentation of the propositions herein, this measure is one of the biggest loads of manure I have ever seen out of Sacramento. It is clearly an attempted first-step at public financing of campaigns, an old saw of liberal do-gooders, and it is completely out of step with U.S. Supreme Court decisions that stand for unrestrained free speech in elections, most notably, the recent Citizens United case. This muddle-headed measure should be rejected out-of-hand.
Proposition 16
Placed on the ballot with the support of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, this Initiative Constitutional Amendment requires local governments to obtain the approval of two-thirds of the voters before providing electricity to new customers or expanding such service to new territories if any public funds or bonds are involved.
Proposition 17
This Initiative Statute, placed on the ballot with assistance of Mercury Insurance, allows auto insurance companies to base their prices in part on a driver’s history of insurance coverage. Changes current law to permit insurance companies to offer a discount to drivers who have continuously maintained their auto insurance coverage, even if they change their insurance company.
This seems to me to be a good idea: it offers consumers more choices in the marketplace and FlashReport readers with good driving records, like Jon Fleischman and me, lower insurance rates. I’ve done a small tad of legal work to help this initiative along.
————
The above is the lineup for the June 8, 2010 primary election, as January 28, 2010 was the last day the Secretary of State could certify a measure for the statewide ballot.
February 7th, 2010 at 12:00 am
What happens if you are a solider for example and you cancel your policy because you got sent to Iraq or Korea to save some money, you are going to be reamed with higher insurance rates.
17 might need some amending in the state legislature.
February 7th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Question Jim. My understanding of Prop 14 was that each party would have the option of having none of it’s candidates list their party designation or of having all of them list it which of course is what both major parties would do. But I was told that it wouldn’t be an individual choice for a candidate and that’s a pretty big difference.
February 7th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Matt, I don’t know the exact answer to your question on Prop. 17 but I can say that the soldier would be made no worse off by the intiative.
As to Tom’s question, I read the legislation, and the power to drop the party affiliation disclosure on the ballot is exercised by the candidate, not the party, under Prop. 14.